Why did Nazi Germany even bother with a giant submarine fleet in WWII if there was chance of matching Britain’s naval resources anyway?
Why did Nazi Germany even bother with a giant submarine fleet in WWII if there was chance of matching Britains naval resources anyway?
>Why did Nazi Germany even bother with a giant submarine fleet in WWII
because submarines were the most cost-effective weapon to use
no real point in even attempting to challenge the british surface fleet, because even if they went 100% trying to build up their fleet up they would still be hopelessly outmatched
so they built tons of subs because its literally the only build path that might (still a big might) produce results
this, and they would succeed if for not two factors 1) british intercepting enigma uboat transmissions and cracking them down
2) british sonar advancements not being matched by german equivalent
Also the allies just going for a few heavy guarded convoys rather than a constant stream of cargo ships.
>2) british sonar advancements not being matched by german equivalent
German crystal hydrophones (passive sonar) were always far superior to allied sonars. They completely missed on active sonar and ASDIC led to their demise, but its importance is a bit overblown.
The biggest threat to submarines wasn't actually sonar detection (ASDIC had a very short range) but maritime patrols and airborne surface radars such as the ASV Mark II, that could detect surfaced submarines beyond visual range. They were detected long before they could spot the patrol coming to sink them.
to stop the flow of america resources to britain and russia
Because they were incredibly effective at what they were doing and starved Britain of vital resources without ever directly fighting the RN?
They were effective but wasn't the U boat survival rate really low? Like near suicide tier?
A soldier had a better chance fighting on the Eastern Front, which had a ridiculously high casualty rate.
Pretty much the only reason, and it wasn't effective. Russia would not have survived without American supplies and gibs.
U-boats suffered a 75% casualty rate. They stopped being effective basically the moment the allies took anti-submarine warfare seriously. The german tendency to throw green crews straight into combat and work their veterans non-stop to the point of exhaustion didn't help either.
U-boat effectiveness fell sharply starting in 43. Arguably, they were always vulnerable with the exchange ratio for one boat moving from 10 to 20 merchants sunk per boat, but in 1943 several major technological improvements made the U-boat types then in service essentially obsolete. It could also be argued that the U-boat effort was hopeless from the start because of low numbers of boats available to Dönitz. He only really got the 300 boats in service that he wanted right as the allies figured out how to make them obsolete. Still, there were some stunning victories that the U-boats won from 39 to 43.
>some of those deuce in a halfs survived to invade Ukraine in 2022
what a time to be alive
>Pretty much the only reason, and it wasn't effective. Russia would not have survived without American supplies and gibs.
Tbf vatniks had several routes to be resupplied, most of which could not have been covered by subs. Better question is what kind of advantage would have a type 21
given to the germans if they updated their fleet in time around 41/42.
>if there was chance of matching Britain’s naval resources
There wasn't.
Bacause submarines are effective. They are still effective today. A good, well trained crew can do a lot of damage to a fleet.
They thought submarines could hide in the depth. How wrong they were. In fact they became literal beacons for radio triangulation early in the war, before even code breaking. The allies had superior tracking far better than the germans could ever muster.
How does it feel to be wrong about pretty much everything you publicly share?
>In fact they became literal beacons for radio triangulation early in the war, before even code breaking
Happy Times go brrrrrrr
because the only other choice was being BTFO in surface ships or being BTFO by having no navy at all.
>if there was chance of matching Britain’s naval resources anyway
There wasn't.
It was in line with the (sensible) strategy of blockading and degrading the British isles via attrition - which many say would have worked had Hitler not fixated on terror bombings.
If he hadn't done either the UK getting involved in the war would have been a much harder sell.
Fleet in Being.